1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 29, 2016, the Plaintiffs, who are married couple, and the Defendant, as the obligor, the guarantor, and the Defendant’s creditor, entered into a letter of loan for real estate consumption (Evidence A (Evidence A (Evidence A). The content of the loan shall be set at KRW 350 million per annum, and the agreement shall be set at 24% per annum, the due date until November 30, 2016, and the interest for three months shall be deducted in advance from interest.

(hereinafter “instant loan agreement”). B.

With respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 owned by the Plaintiffs, each of which is owned by the Plaintiffs, as joint collateral, each of which was registered as the debtor D, the maximum debt amount of KRW 4550 million, and Ulsan District Court No. 161954 on August 29, 2016 under the name of the Defendant of the mortgagee, on the ground of the contract signed by August 29, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 5, and the purport of the pleading prior to the pleading.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was that the Defendant borrowed money through Nonparty E in order to obtain a loan, and the Defendant first prepared a loan certificate (No. 1) and set up the instant collateral security, and then the Plaintiffs, E, and the Defendant met at the Real Estate Agent’s Office on August 30, 2016. At the time, the Defendant visited the loan by inserting it in cash.

In the case where the plaintiffs and the defendant delegate to E the delivery of the bank on which the loan was made, and they left the place, they constitute the defendant's agent or person who received a request from the defendant for the delivery of the bank from the plaintiffs.

I would like to say.

However, the defendant, after leaving the office, deducted the amount of money entered in the bank with prior interest, etc. after deducting the amount of money actually paid from E's office, and only KRW 298.5 million, which is the amount actually paid, is below KRW 325 million.